Cited by 193Satellite Image Processing and PhotogrammetrySynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesHistorical Geography and Cartography

Comparison of free high resolution digital elevation data sets (ASTER GDEM2, SRTM v2.1/v4.1) and validation against accurate heights from the Australian National Gravity Database

Open access
Rexer, M., Hirt, C.·2014·Australian Journal of Earth Sciences

Abstract

Today, several global digital elevation models (DEMs) are freely available on the web. This study compares and evaluates the latest release of the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission Reflectometer DEM (ASTER GDEM2) and two DEMs based on the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) as released by the United States Geological Survey (SRTM3 USGS version 2.1) and by the Consortium for Spatial Information (SRTM CGIAR-CSI version 4.1) over the Australian continent.The comparison generally shows a very good agreement between both SRTM DEMs; however, data voids contained in the USGS model over steep topographic relief are filled in the CGIAR-CSI model. ASTER GDEM2 has a northeast- to southwest-aligned striping error at the 10 m level and shows an average height bias of –5 m relative to SRTM models. The root-mean square (RMS) height error obtained from the differences between ASTER GDEM2 and SRTM over Australia is found to be around 9.5 m. An external validation of the models with over 228 000 accurate station heights from the Australian National Gravity Database allows estimating each models’ elevation accuracies over Australia: ASTER GDEM2 ∼ 8.5 m, SRTM3 USGS ∼ 6 m, SRTM CGIAR-CSI ∼ 4.5 m (RMS). In addition, the dependence of the DEM accuracy on terrain type and land cover is analysed. Applying a cross-correlation image co-registration technique to 529 1 × 1 degree tiles and 138 2 × 2 degree tiles reveals a mean relative shift of ASTER GDEM2 compared with SRTM of –0.007 and –0.042 arc-seconds in north–south and –0.100 and –0.136 arc-seconds in east–west direction over Australia, respectively.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08120099.2014.884983

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rexer, M., & Hirt, C.
Affiliations
Curtin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Rexer, M.
Venue
Australian Journal of Earth Sciences
Published
2014-02-17
Volume
61
Issue
2
Pages
213-226
ISSN
  • 0812-0099 (ISSN-L)
  • 1440-0952
OpenAlex
W2171808568
Cited by
193
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 2
FWCI
30.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Australian Journal of Earth Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Office of Research and Development
  • Curtin University of Technology
  • Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt
  • Technische Universität München
  • Australian Research Council (DP120102441)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Ocean Engineering › Satellite Image Processing and Photogrammetry
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Historical Geography and Cartography
Keywords
digital elevation model, SRTM, elevation accuracy, DEM validation, terrain type, land cover, Australian continent

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review